|
wilshire
free radical


Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 3 days
|
my dilemma
#7791816 - 12/23/07 09:15 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
"Where are the primary causes on which I am to build? Where are my foundations? Where am I to get them from? I exercise myself in reflection, and consequently with me every primary cause at once draws after itself another still more primary, and so on to infinity. That is just the essence of every sort of consciousness and reflection."
- fyodor dostoevsky, notes from underground
|
JoseLibrado
return


Registered: 04/21/07
Posts: 569
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: my dilemma [Re: wilshire]
#7791952 - 12/23/07 10:08 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Whats the dillema?
A dillema is primary nessecity for the potential to experience clarity.
I see no dillema, i see freedom. Freedom from thinking one needs to do anything.
Freedom freedom.
-------------------- The mind is a creative tool. It searches to protect you, through message sensations(feelings). It is no different than a computer, you need to make sure its anti-virus program is in check and that it doesnt have a script that limits your experience, because of to much precaution. And remember the computer does not appear to respond to words of anger and frustration - just give it input, in the form of new meanings that you know to be true and its messages to you and the limits it lays out for you, will change. Guilt is an outcome of believing you are the cause of the problems. Yet, we are not a cause to something, we see is negative or bad - Unless you believe your intentions are directed towards a bad outcome....
|
JoseLibrado
return


Registered: 04/21/07
Posts: 569
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: my dilemma [Re: wilshire]
#7791988 - 12/23/07 10:18 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Whats the dillema?
A dillema is primary nessecity for the potential to experience clarity.
I see no dillema, i see freedom. Freedom from thinking one needs to do anything.
Freedom freedom.
-------------------- The mind is a creative tool. It searches to protect you, through message sensations(feelings). It is no different than a computer, you need to make sure its anti-virus program is in check and that it doesnt have a script that limits your experience, because of to much precaution. And remember the computer does not appear to respond to words of anger and frustration - just give it input, in the form of new meanings that you know to be true and its messages to you and the limits it lays out for you, will change. Guilt is an outcome of believing you are the cause of the problems. Yet, we are not a cause to something, we see is negative or bad - Unless you believe your intentions are directed towards a bad outcome....
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
wilshire
free radical


Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 3 days
|
|
A dillema is primary nessecity for the potential to experience clarity.
i have no idea what you just said.
I see no dillema, i see freedom. Freedom from thinking one needs to do anything.
i can do anything i'm capable of. what should i do, and why? not knowing the answer is not "freedom".
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: my dilemma [Re: wilshire]
#7793938 - 12/23/07 09:54 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
i have no idea what you just said.
Maybe because clarity and dilemma define each other? Maybe because a dilemma always gives you the opportunity to work things out, get more insight and therefore experience clarity?
Quote:
i can do anything i'm capable of. what should i do, and why? not knowing the answer is not "freedom".
You lose me here?  Can you rephrase?
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: my dilemma [Re: wilshire]
#7794033 - 12/23/07 10:21 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
We, in our existential situation, percieve the universe at many different levels of relativity. Always some.
There would seem to be no escaping this.
Your question in the original post seems to fundamentally ask "what am I?" followed by your later question of "how should I exist?" To exist, we assume that there should be a certain substantiality to nature, because logically, something has to be reflected. It is instinct to question what I, you, me he, she or it is, but is it necessary to understand anything outside of how to exist?
We tend to assume that how something is done, is based upon what that something is, but this is not necessarily the case. Actually, reality tends to point to vice-versa, because everything is necessarily relative. We understand what something is, based upon how it acts. We know nothing out of the relativity of stimulus and response.
What reality is, What we would deem to be absolute truth, pertains to the substance of nature.
And how reality (is), pertains to relativity.
All you can do is exert yourself into the meaninglessness of relativity. Participate in this existential experiment. Become a creator, an artist, a God of meaninglessness yourself. Eventually all forms of relativitiy begin to point fundamentally towards the same spectrum of being/non-being.
This is based somewhat upon Spinoza's theory of substance. He would further conclude that there is only one form of substance, which he called God. Every(thing). This is a little different than the way I see it though.
I hope this helps. Good luck to the both of us.
Edited by daytripper23 (12/24/07 06:31 AM)
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: my dilemma [Re: wilshire]
#7794834 - 12/24/07 06:45 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Heh, I was a bit tipsy and biased when I wrote that.
You might just wanna read Spinoza himself, and come to your own conclusions. Its an incredible experience. He actually tends to blend right in with eastern philosophy, if thats what your into.
From Wiki:
Substance, Attribute and Mode:
"These are the fundamental concepts with which Spinoza sets forth a vision of Being, illuminated by his awareness of God. They may seem strange at first sight. To the question "What is?" he replies: "Substance, its attributes and modes". Spinoza, Carl Jaspers p.9
Spinoza's system imparted order and unity to the tradition of radical thought, offering powerful weapons for prevailing against "received authority." As a youth he first subscribed to Descartes's dualistic belief that body and mind are two separate substances, but later changed his view and asserted that they were not separate, being a single identity. He contended that everything that exists in Nature/Universe is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part. Spinoza viewed God and Nature as two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than "matter") that is the basis of the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect are only understood in part. That humans presume themselves to have free will, he argues, is a result of their awareness of appetites while being unable to understand the reasons why they want and act as they do. The argument for the single substance runs as follows:
1. Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence. 2. No two substances can share the same nature or attribute.
Proof: Two distinct substances can be differentiated either by some difference in their natures or by some difference in one of their alterable states of being. If they have different natures, then the original proposition is granted and the proof is complete. If, however, they are distinguished only by their states of being, then, considering the substances in themselves, there is no difference between the substances and they are identical. "That is, there cannot be several such substances but only one." [4]
3. A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something that shares its attribute). 4. Substance cannot be caused.
Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused.
5. Substance is infinite.
Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.
Conclusion: There can only be one substance.
Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances.
Spinoza contended that "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") was a being of infinitely many attributes, of which extension and thought were two. His account of the nature of reality, then, seems to treat the physical and mental worlds as one and the same. The universal substance consists of both body and mind, there being no difference between these aspects. This formulation is a historically significant solution to the mind-body problem known as neutral monism. The consequences of Spinoza's system also envisage a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, God is the natural world and has no personality.
|
|